Confrontation Clause

1,935 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,522 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Huang
  960 F.2d 1128· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 6×
  Retrial is barred by double jeopardy for defendants who objected to a mistrial declared over their objections, but not for defendants who moved for the mistrial, absent evidence of prosecutorial or judicial intent to provoke the motion.
• United States v. Chapman
  954 F.2d 1352· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of both defendants, finding no errors in the search and seizure, severance, double jeopardy, compulsory process, ineffective assistance of counsel, or sentencing issues raised.
• United States v. Velasco
  953 F.2d 1467· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-17 ·cited 6×
• United States v. Reva Young
  952 F.2d 1252· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-31 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's actions in opening an unauthorized account and misrepresenting her signatory authority constituted bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence.
• Ford v. State
  592 So. 2d 271· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-12-11 ·cited 6×
  Rufus Ford was convicted of first-degree murder based in part on the videotaped testimony of a four-year-old witness. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the videotaped testimony procedure was not statutorily authorized and violated Ford's Sixth Amendment right to
• Strapp v. State
  588 So. 2d 27· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-10-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's challenge to the aggravated battery conviction was not preserved for appellate review because the defense failed to make a clear offer of proof regarding the complaining witness's probationary status and motive to lie.
• United States v. DeFOREST
  946 F.2d 523· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the defendant's prior convictions were validly obtained and sufficient to support the sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
• United States v. MacEo
  947 F.2d 1191· 5th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a single conspiracy and the individual convictions of the appellants, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Raley v. Parke
  945 F.2d 137· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-19 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the 1980 guilty plea was validly entered, but the 1981 plea was not sufficiently proven to be knowing and intelligent. A conditional writ of habeas corpus was granted, allowing the state to hold a new evidentiary hearing on the 1981 plea.
• McCAFFERTY v. Leapley
  944 F.2d 445· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a child victim's out-of-court statements did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the statements possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Furthermore, any alleged trial errors were not so prejudicial as to
• Werner v. State
  590 So. 2d 431· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-07-31 ·cited 6×
  Martin Werner was convicted of committing a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of his 13-month-old daughter while masturbating in a bathroom. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statute requires the child to actually see or sense the lewd act, not m
• United States v. Copley
  938 F.2d 107· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that any error in admitting a co-conspirator's hearsay statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• Gaither v. State
  581 So. 2d 922· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-06-07 ·cited 6×
  Michael Gaither was convicted of sexual battery and lewd conduct against his stepdaughter based primarily on videotaped testimony. The Florida appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to make required constitutional findings that the child would suffer substantial
• State v. Nemeth
  581 So. 2d 627· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-06-07 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State sought certiorari review of a trial court order that granted the defendant's motion in limine to exclude testimony from a key prosecution witness regarding the ownership and timing of stolen property. The appellate court found the exclusion order constituted a departure
• United States v. Crump
  934 F.2d 947· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in limiting cross-examination or admitting prior bad acts testimony, and that the evidence did not establish entrapment as a matter of law.
• United States v. Bonnet
  933 F.2d 1471· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The admission of hearsay statements from child victims did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the children testified and were subject to cross-examination, even if their memory was imperfect.
• Webb v. Lane
  922 F.2d 390· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-08 ·cited 6×
  The admission of the victim's statements, identified as 'Little Gage,' did not violate the Confrontation Clause because they qualified as excited utterances and a dying declaration, which are firmly rooted hearsay exceptions.
• Glock v. Dugger
  752 F. Supp. 1027· M.D. Fla.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of codefendants' confessions, even if interlocking, was permissible under certain circumstances indicating reliability, and that counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance.
• United States v. Panzardi-Lespier
  918 F.2d 313· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of the deceased informant's grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(5) was proper, as it possessed sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and the defendant received adequate notice. The admission of tape recordings, despite some inaudible portio
• United States v. Thorn
  917 F.2d 170· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and equity skimming, and that the exclusion of evidence of a witness's unrelated state indictment was not an abuse of discretion.
• United States v. Harris
  914 F.2d 927· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an attorney's out-of-court statements, made while acting as the client's agent, are admissible against the client as non-hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D), provided no significant policy concerns are infringed.
• United States v. MacKey
  915 F.2d 69· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that proceeding with a criminal trial in the defendant's absence, when his absence was due to transportation issues and not a knowing and voluntary waiver, constitutes reversible error, especially when the defendant misses jury selection and key witness testimony.
• Phillips v. Brennan
  912 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that if the Parole Commission fails to provide a prisoner with adequate notice of documents and witnesses to be used against him, it violates his due process rights, and the decision may not be upheld based on other evidence if the improperly considered factors con
• Rosenthal v. Justices OF THE Supreme Court OF Cal.
  910 F.2d 561· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the appellant's claims challenging his disbarment proceedings, affirming the dismissal.
• Donnie Shafer v. Hal Stratton
  906 F.2d 506· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the petitioner's claims were either procedurally defaulted, not of constitutional magnitude, or lacked merit under federal law.
• Orndorff v. A.L. Lockhart
  906 F.2d 1230· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prosecutor's failure to disclose a key witness's hypnosis was a constitutional error, but the harmless error analysis requires comparing pre-hypnosis statements with trial testimony, not deeming it inherently prejudicial.
• United States v. Vernor
  902 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a father's custodial confessions implicating his son in a bank robbery did not violate the son's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights because the statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability and trustworthiness, corroborated by other evidence.
• United States v. Amerson-Bey
  898 F.2d 681· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-22 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not err in sustaining an objection during cross-examination and that the sentence enhancement did not violate due process as the constitutional objection was not raised below.
• United States v. Bentley
  875 F.2d 1114· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a laboratory report indicating a positive urine drug test, without further explanation of the testing procedure or opportunity for cross-examination, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses and was not harmless error.
• Frank v. Brookhart
  877 F.2d 671· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for habeas corpus relief, as the state courts' factual findings were supported by the record and the petitioner did not demonstrate prejudice from alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, o
• White v. Lewis
  874 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-08 ·cited 6×
  A motion to dismiss is a proper pleading in a habeas corpus action, and a petitioner must demonstrate cause and prejudice for any procedural default in state court to be entitled to federal habeas relief.
• United States v. Fryar
  867 F.2d 850· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a juror for lying, denying motions for mistrial and new trial, or in excluding evidence and refusing to disclose an informant's identity.
• United States v. Morales-MacIas
  855 F.2d 693· 10th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 6×
  An out-of-court statement offered to explain preliminary circumstances, rather than for the truth of the matter asserted, is not hearsay and its admission does not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
• United States v. Verbeke
  853 F.2d 537· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-27 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that hearsay evidence is admissible at probation revocation hearings, and a defendant is not entitled to credit for time served on probation.
• United States v. Muzamal Chaudhry
  850 F.2d 851· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the defendant's claims of constitutional violations and discovery infractions were without merit, as they were either factually unsupported by the record, procedurally defaulted, or did not demonstrate prejudice.
• United States v. Boyce
  849 F.2d 833· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court committed prejudicial error by admitting a codefendant's statement against the appellant under the declarations against interest exception to the hearsay rule.
• Scott v. Dugger
  686 F. Supp. 1488· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding no basis for federal relief and lifting the stay of execution.
• Brown v. Lynaugh
  843 F.2d 849· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that allowing the presiding trial judge to testify as a witness for the state violated the defendant's due process right to a fundamentally fair trial.
• Cooper v. Scroggy
  845 F.2d 1385· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Calloway's confession was unconstitutionally admitted, but Cooper's confession was not. However, Cooper's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of Calloway's confession against him.
• United States v. Hernandez
  842 F.2d 82· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 6×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the trial in the defendants' voluntary absence, nor in denying their motions for severance or suppression of evidence.
• United States ex rel. Charles Sanders v. Lane
  835 F.2d 1204· 7th Cir.· 1987-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's incriminating statement at a joint trial violates the Confrontation Clause unless the error was harmless.
• Augustus Marshall v. Young
  833 F.2d 709· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that trial counsel's failure to investigate bullet caliber was not ineffective assistance, and the admission of hearsay testimony did not violate the confrontation clause.
• Wells v. Murray
  831 F.2d 468· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-13 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a "reasonable likelihood" of prejudice, not a "strong possibility," is the standard for determining if a defendant is entitled to voir dire when events outside the trial may have biased the jury.
• McQUEEN v. Garrison
  814 F.2d 951· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, as the testimony was sufficiently independent of the hypnosis and corroborated by other evidence.
• Perez v. State
  500 So. 2d 725· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-01-08 ·cited 6×
  Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's admission of a child victim's hearsay statements under the statutory exception and rejection of the defendant's confrontation clause challenge, finding the child unavailable due to risk of severe mental harm.
• United States v. Arroyo
  805 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-12 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's grant of a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in the judge's determination that admitting co-conspirator hearsay was an error that could not be cured by instruction.
• United States v. Thompson
  807 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to convict the defendant, the admission of a homemade knife was proper, the restriction of cross-examination was justified, and the voir dire was adequate.
• Andrade v. O.L. McCOTTER
  805 F.2d 1190· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-01 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prisoner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, thus denying his request for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution.
• United States v. Bueno-Risquet
  799 F.2d 804· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-07 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the admission of testimony and request forms regarding missing heroin exhibits was proper, and that an erroneous jury instruction on anticipated profits was harmless error. The court affirmed the convictions.
• United States v. Ward
  793 F.2d 551· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 6×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the government's conduct in orchestrating a drug smuggling operation did not rise to the level of outrageousness required to violate due process, and that the admission of evidence of prior drug activity was proper.